python-betterproto VS pfun

For context: in a project I was working on recently, we relied heavily on Protocol buffers. All our internal and external services expose a GRPC interface. Also the client libraries that are used by the end users rely on the Proto service interfaces. However, shipping simply the generated code that comes with the official protoc Python plugin or any other standardised Python protoc plugin (like betterproto) was not sufficient for us. We wanted certain modifications and additions to the generated client code like service clients that would automatically pick up credentials/service account files, a more Pythonic handling for requests that work with pagination or long running operations etc.

Another examples: pfun - stuff you'd find in FP language, but in Python (like using monads for effects)

I am a long-time Coconut user, so functional ideas are relatively easy to play with. But I recently discovered pfun which has a lovely system for Effectful programming.

In pfun 0.12.0 the interpreter for the effect system was completely re-written as a Python C extension. Lets do some benchmarking to see how big a difference this actually makes in terms of performance. We'll use the performance of the the Scala library ZIO as a baseline, as the pfun effect system draws most of its inspiration from there. ZIO has a fairly extensive benchmarking suite. The most obvious benchmark for testing raw interpreter speed, without any parallelism, is called deepLeftBind (bind is the canonical name for the and_then operation, also called flatMap in Scala):